CITY OF GOLDEN PLANNING STAFF REPORT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AGENDA
CASE NO: HPB 21-05 MEETING DATE: May 3, 2021
APPLICANT:
REQUESTED ACTION: Certificate of Appropriateness: Certificate of Design Review and Finding of Compatibility for an internal remodel, external repairs and rear addition located at 822 12th Street, in the 12th Street Historic District
EXHIBITS: Resolution HPB 21-05 Vicinity Map Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review Memo regarding expansion and the ‘yard’ Application
SUMMARY
An application has been submitted to the City of Golden Historic Preservation Board to consider a certificate of design review and a finding of compatibility for external repairs and a rear addition, located at 822 12th Street, the Astor House, a contributing structure within the 12th Street Historic District and Landmark Property in the City of Golden. Pursuant to the Historic District Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) requires a review prior to the issuance of a building permit for renovation and new construction of this type to any structure within a historic district. The HPB should review the proposal, make any design suggestions, and adopt a resolution documenting the review.
BACKGROUND
The Astor House is located at 822 12th Street and was built in approximately 1867 and is listed as a contributing structure in the 12th Street Historic District. The Astor House is also a Landmark Property in the City, designated in 2020. Over the past 148 years the Building has played multiple and important roles in the City of Golden. These range from museum, to boarding house to hotel during the Territorial capital days. Much has been presented to the Historic Board about the importance of both honoring and preserving the Astor House as an important part of Golden History, while also allowing it to be a working and link to the downtown and 12th St Historic District. The important facts regarding this historic structure and its role in history not only for Golden but the State of Colorado are provided in the application, Foothills Art Center, application packet submittal, see attached. The Board’s Astor House Structure Report was also consulted for this applicant and review.
Currently the building (since 2015) has sat vacant following the City’s stabilization and rehabilitation efforts. The Applicant wishes to repair the building internally and externally, and add an addition to the existing structure in the rear of the property. This addition aims to complement the existing design
Historic Preservation Board HPB 21-05 May 3, 2021
and allow for a more creative addition that both complements the existing building and opens it up for new and creative uses for the future.
DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The Historic Preservation Board most often addresses additions or changes to an existing structure. In order to appropriately address exterior changes, it is instructive to review the specific code criteria and purpose for the review. Section 18.58.060(3) contains the criteria for changes to or demolition of existing structures. The Golden Historic District Residential Guidelines (Guidelines) reviews materials for additions and alterations and states, “For additions or repairs, use materials similar in type and scale to those of the existing building”.
The proposed changes with the addition of an existing structure are reviewed under the Historic Guidelines for consistency with the original architecture, streetscape and the neighborhood. Additionally, the project was reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by Cindy Nasky with the Colorado Historical Foundation, see the attached memo.
The Applicant has proposed that materials and appearance on the repairs will be as close as possible to the existing structure. No proposed rehabilitation to the existing structure maintains the entire structure with the exception of a small 1950’s rear addition. This addition is outside the period of significance for the Astor House.
While the COA: Certificate of Design Review is ultimately a recommendation, the HPB may wish to review the structure under the historic building addition criteria to document the proposed changes. The guidelines for additions and alterations apply for the addition. In the attached review of the historic district standards and guidelines, the rehabilitation of the Astor House and the rear addition meet the Board’s standards and guidelines with a white colored addition in contrasting, but complementary materials and similar form with a functional two-story addition meeting the Foothills Art Center’s need for gallery space.
Astor House Yard
Staff is attaching a memorandum in light of recent citizen correspondence to the City Council and some members of the Historic Preservation Board regarding the expansion of the addition further into the yard. Staff confirms that the expansion into the yard does not require a vote, per the City Charter, for the expansion. The Board may discuss the expansion as a policy matter during its deliberations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the requested changes to 822 12th Street using the Board’s standards and guidelines. The addition clearly meets the Guidelines and staff recommends approval without any conditions. The addition also meets the intent of the Guidelines as the colors and roofline are complementary to the principal structure with modern materials. The modern materials distinguish this addition from the Historic Structure. In review of the proposed addition, considering the Landmark status of the structure, the changes proposed do meet the Guidelines. Staff advises the Board that the application meets the applicable review criteria. The rehabilitation and new addition also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, per the independent review of the Colorado Historical Foundation.
2
Historic Preservation Board HPB 21-05 May 3, 2021
DRAFT MOTION
In the matter of Case HPB 21-05, a request for COA: Certificate of Design Review and a Finding of Compatibility for the proposed addition residential noncontributing structure, located at 822 12th Street, I move that the Historic Preservation Board the findings, recommendations and conditions found in the attached Resolution No. HPB 21-05.
3
Standards and Description Staff Review Guideline
3.2.a Maintain existing sidewalk and tree lawn The exiting streetscape (devoid of street trees) at Streetscape: treatment. 822 12th Street/Arapahoe is not proposed to Standards change with this project, although there are City- led efforts to gain funding to improve it from its current condition to a more inviting pedestrian environment. 3.2.a Landscaping should be limited to street trees, The exiting streetscape at 822 12th Streetscape: specimen trees as focal points, and massing of Street/Arapahoe is not proposed to change with Guidelines shrubbery near the building. this project due to the buildings’ location.
3.2.b Site: Locate accessory buildings such as sheds and The change on this site is taking place in the rear Standards garages at the rear of the lot, as is traditional. of the lot with the addition. No new accessory buildings are proposed. 3.2.b Site: Sidewalks should be rectilinear and should No new access is proposed in the front of the Guidelines maintain traditional patterns paralleling the site, and access will be maintained to and from streets. the rear yard from Arapahoe and the surrounding parking area. The Astor House is being Repair of building, landscape and streetscape rehabilitated and repaired as part of this project. elements should reinforce the historic The Board’s Astor House Report is able to character. Repair will also generally include inform the building repairs through analysis and replacement with a similar or compatible historical photographs. material.
Physical evidence and or photos should be used as a guide when replacing an entire feature of the building, landscape or streetscape that is too deteriorated to repair. 3.2.c Spacing: Locate additions to existing houses back from The new addition of the Astor House is being Standards the front facade so the visual quality of located in the rear of the lot. spacing is preserved.
3.2.c Spacing: Preserve the existing setback characteristic of The new addition of the Astor House is being Guidelines the block. Porches, decks, solid fences, or located in the rear of the lot and is in line with other similar additions should not intrude into the existing house. this space, and are more appropriate at the rear of the building.
Additions to a building should maintain the overall sense of size of the building. 3.2.d Open Maintain openness between the street and the There is not existing space between the front of Area & house. house and 12th Street. The project is proposing Landscape: to rehabilitate the rear yard area around the new Standards addition. 3.2.d Open Limit front yard landscaping to street and No space for landscaping in the front as there is Area & specimen trees and massing of shrubbery near not a yard; however, the landscaping will be in Landscape: the building. the rear yard, where it has been traditionally on Guidelines this lot. Preserve the landscape entry on the street frontage, even if internal layout requires an alternative or secondary entry location. 3.2.e Alleys: Preserve the use of alleys to provide access to This property does not have traditional alley Standards the rear of properties. access, however no new driveways are being proposed. 3.2.e Alleys: Efforts should be made to protect the variety This property does not have an alley that is in Guidelines of shape, size, and alignment of buildings anyway preserved. along the alleys.
3.2.f Building To the extent practicable, locate the new The new addition is on the rear of the property Variety: addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous and is scaled to be subservient to Astor House Standards side of the historic building. with a ‘light touch’ or glass atrium connection, clearly delineating the addition from the old to Limit the size and scale of the addition(s) in the new. The district’s dimensional standards, of relationship to the historic building. height, bulk and lot coverage standard will be reviewed additionally by the Planning Comply with applicable City-wide height, Commission, but as proposed meets those bulk and lot coverage standards. standards. 3.2.f Building New additions should be constructed so that The new addition is being constructed by Variety: there is the least possible loss of historic removing an older 1950s’s addition and is Guidelines materials and that historically characteristic distinctive from the original Astor House in features of the home are not obscured, materials. The addition compliments the existing damaged, or destroyed. structure with screens that mimic windows in placement and a roof form that similar to the Any addition to a historic structure should be existing house, but will be separated by the designed to architecturally compliment the atrium between the addition and main structure. existing historic structure and the While the addition’s color palette is the same as neighborhood for which it is within. the Astor House, contrasting materials are Design additional stories that are as proposed to differentiate it from the original inconspicuous as possible when viewed from house with a smooth stucco and metal screen the street. over it.
Where matching historic materials is impractical, consider contrasting materials, colors and textures. 3.2.h Roof Use the roof form of the original structure or, There are no changes proposed to the original Forms: as a second choice, a historically compatible structure’s roof. The roof of the addition is in Standards roof form found in the district for to a building line and subordinate to the existing roofline structure. structures.
Roof lines interrupted by solar panels, skylights, and roof decks should not be visible from the street. Solar greenhouses on the street façade are inappropriate. 3.2.h Roof Solar panels should be mounted flat on the There are no solar panels or sky lights proposed Forms: roof or flat against the pitch of the roof and out for the original structure’s roof or any for the Guidelines of sight if possible or on the ground in an addition that would protrude above the roofline. inconspicuous position. Skylights should be There are no enclosed porches proposed for the flat and not the bubble type. project.
Porch enclosures designed to be passive solar elements should observe the guidelines for porches. Any metal should be finished to blend with surrounding building material. 3.2.i Windows: Every effort should be made to repair original The existing windows on the Astor House are Guidelines windows rather than replace them. being repaired and maintained. Any new windows on the addition are modern and fit with When replacement of deteriorated windows is the design of the addition in scale, color and required, or new ones must be added, the materials. original windows should be matched in size and type.
Metal window frames may not be left as bright unfinished metal but should be anodized or painted as recommended by the manufacturer.
Storm windows and screens should match the original windows as nearly as possible. Bright aluminum frames and screens are inappropriate.
The renovation of existing buildings should reflect the pattern of window openings that exist in other buildings of the District. Openings should indicate floor levels, and should reflect the symmetry or asymmetry of the building. 3.2.j Entrances, Solid walls should not be added where none No solid walls are proposed for the front Decks and originally existed. porch/entrance area or any modifications. Porches (Porches and The size and location of new porches should Entrances): be typical to the historical architectural form Standards of the home.
3.2.j Entrances, When repairing porches, the open visual Any repairs to the front porch area will be done Decks and character should be preserved. Deteriorated in a manner that is consistent with the building Porches porches should be repaired rather than as it is currently as there are no changes (Porches and demolished. proposed with the exception of paint colors. Entrances): Guidelines Creating an enclosed porch may be desirable for the renovation of buildings, but such enclosures have a significant impact on the visual character of both the individual house and the streetscape. The greatest care needs to be taken in the design of the enclosure to maintain the sense of transparency and separation from the structure of the house. Glazing should be transparent with as little visible framing as possible. The design and materials should be kept as simple as possible rather than trying to match the building facade. Porch materials treatments should be historically compatible. 3.2.j Entrances, Decks should be at the rear of the home. The proposed deck is on the rear of the addition. Decks and Porches (Decks): Standards
3.2.j Entrances, Decks should be as unobtrusive as possible. The proposed deck is unobtrusive because it is Decks and Unpainted redwood is a material of modern on the rear of the addition is a modern finish that Porches use and is inappropriate in the Historic is consistent with the materials and finishes of (Decks): District. Rooftop decks are highly visible and the addition. Guidelines are not common to the styles found in the residential architecture of historic Golden.
Railings should incorporate details from existing balustrades. Contemporary building codes require details that change the height of railings. 3.2.k Materials: Siding materials such as wood, brick, and The plastered-over stone of the Astor House is Standards stone are most appropriate. not being modified with this addition. For the addition, a small 1950’s addition is being For additions or repairs, use materials similar removed and a glass ‘light touch’ is being added in type and scale to those of the existing to transition to a new section with a smooth building. Where similar materials are not cementious finish with a modern metal screen practical, use contrasting materials. over which contrast with the building. 3.2.k Materials: Finish new materials to match the existing The applicant is purposely proposing the new Guidelines materials. Highly reflective materials are addition to have different finish than the existing inappropriate in the historic area. building. The new building will have a matte white paint color to match the existing building. Protect and maintain building exterior materials by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate next to or on building materials or in a curved decorative feature.
Repair or replace exterior building materials that are too deteriorated, by using the physical evidence or past photos as a guide in applying the new materials. 3.2.l Paint Paint or repaint with colors that are The applicant is proposing a white paint color Color: appropriate to the historic building and for the addition. The Astor House’s trim is Standards district. proposed to be painted ochre yellow-type color to freshen its appearance; however, the white façade of the building is not proposed to change.
3.2.l Paint Some pigments are more unstable than others The proposed colors of white with a gold-yellow Color: due to Colorado's high levels of ultra-violet trim are muted colors. There are no consistent Guidelines light. paint colors that have been used over the years on the trim colors, so it is open to interpretation Colors that are muted will be most and a color that suits the use. appropriate.
Remove damaged or deteriorating paint only to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible before repainting. 3.2.m Fences: Solid and chain link fences should not be used New fencing is not proposed in the front, only in Standards in front of the house, but may be appropriate the rear and side. for fencing areas to the rear.
3.2.m Fences: A durable material in an open design should The applicant is proposing a metal fencing (not Guidelines be used for fences in front of the building chain link) in the rear/side, replacing the iron setback line. fencing in the current rear yard. The current fencing in the rear yard was moved there from Iron and wood pickets are appropriate and the Masterson house after the Astor House’s may be used in conjunction with a low primary and secondary period of significance. masonry wall. The City will find a reuse for the iron fencing materials currently located in the yard area. Low privet hedges are appropriate but require more ongoing maintenance. Chain link fences are inappropriate.
Fences and walls on in the rear of corner lots are essentially placed in the front yard of the side street frontage. 3.2.n Accessory Garages shall be at the side or rear of There are no new garages proposed. Buildings and residential structures. Garages should not Garages: become a dominant feature in front of the Standards house or in any location. Garage doors shall not be forward of the front façade of the residence. 3.2.n Accessory New garages shall be located in a manner that There are no new garages or parking structures Buildings and retains the size and character of accessory proposed. All parking will be handled by the Garages: buildings found in the area of the new Planning Commission during site plan review Guidelines construction. Garage doors should be made of and the City Council to assist with any offsets wood or similar materials. needed for this use.
For longer garage facades, two small doors may be more appropriate than one long door. When making a carport addition, existing materials should not be covered.
Free standing carports are difficult to fit into the historic character of the district and other options should be used. A shed roof addition to another structure, with a low knee wall to give definition to its form is one example.
Site details shall highlight and provide a sense of pedestrian scale at building entries, and help offset the prominence of cars, garages and driveways.
On-site parking should be limited to the rear of the lot and not be allowed in the front setback. Access to parking should be from the alley where applicable.
RESOLUTION HPB 21-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS CONCERING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND A FINDING OF COMPATIBILITY FOR AN ADDITION AND REHABILITATION LOCATED AT 822 12TH STREET
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Board is vested with authority under Section 18.58.070 of the City of Golden Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the required public hearing has been accomplished according to law, including posting on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding the request for an addition and interior work at 822 12th Street has been held at a public meeting of the City of Golden Historic Preservation Board on May 3, 2021.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO
1. Foothills Art Center has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.58 of the Golden Municipal Code.
2. The property was properly posted in accordance with Section 18.58.035.
3. Based upon the criteria in Section 18.58.060 and Section 18.58.075 of the Golden Municipal Code and the standards and guidelines of the Historic District Residential Guidelines, The Historic Preservation Board finds that the proposed addition construction and interior work are sufficiently compatible/not compatible with the architectural integrity of the historic district to warrant issuance of a Certificate of Historic Review and Finding of Compatibility for the project.
4. The Historic Preservation Board has the following suggestions for the proposed project:
5. The Historic Preservation Board hereby grants a Certificate of Historic Review and Finding of Compatibility/Non-Compatibility.
6. If significant alterations are made to the plans as presented at this hearing, the Historic Preservation Board requests that the Applicant return to the Board for additional review.
7. Any person aggrieved by this decision of the Historic Preservation Board may file a written request to the City Manager, within 15 days of the date of this decision, requesting City Council to review said decision in accordance with Section 18.58.080 of the City of Golden Municipal Code.
Resolved this 3rd day of May, 2021
ATTEST:
______James Smith, Chair Stephanie Alexander, Secretary to Historic Preservation Board Astor House Property Location
W A S H H T IN 11 G T O N
TH 12 M IN E R S
A R A P A H O E C H TH E 2 Y 1 E N N E
C TH H 12 E H Y 3T E 1 N N E
0 37.5 75 150 225 300 Feet Legend ± Astor House Property
MEMO To: Lauren Simmons From: Cindy Nasky, H.P. Consultant Date: 4.15.21 RE: Astor House – Restoration/Renovation/Addition Assessment
The purpose of this memo is to provide an assessment of the preservation project being proposed by the Foothills Arts Center (FAC) for the re-use of the Astor House, a historic Golden landmark at the corner of 12th & Arapahoe Streets, directly adjacent to the 12th Street Historic Residential District. Although the Astor House is not small, it lacks sufficient space to realize and continue to grow the Foothills Arts Center’s educational mission and programming needs. I am not an architect and it is not my role to design this project. Rather, as an architectural historian and preservationist, my role is to review the proposed design through the lens of protecting and honoring the key defining characteristics of the historic building under review and to provide comment and direction per this perspective.
This assessment is based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The “Standards,” as they are familiarly called, are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. The Guidelines that accompany the Standards describe specific recommended treatments for the application of the Standards. Applied in tandem, they promote and support preservation best practices to help protect irreplaceable cultural resources by providing criteria about the physical approach to fixing up and maintaining historic places.
The most commonly applied and frequently used treatment in the preservation arena is the “Rehabilitation Standards.” Per the National Park Service, rehabilitation is defined as the “act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” This approach provides adequate yet acceptable guidelines to preservation. It acknowledges the need to alter or add features to historic buildings to meet new uses in order to keep historic buildings vital, usable and economically viable within their historic setting. The Rehabilitation Standards ultimately encourage thoughtful compromise over building redundancy and ultimate underuse and deterioration.
Colorado Historical Foundation PO Box 363 Golden Colorado 80402
For the proposed FAC project at the Astor House, there are three distinct areas of focus to include:
Project Applicable Applicable Guidelines Component Standard Astor House – Rehabilitation Whereas the Rehabilitation Standards are being applied to the Exterior Elevations Standards project as a whole, the exterior work on the historic building is & Roofline largely restoration. Much of the historic character, including the massing, roofline, fenestration (window/door configuration), and original materials are intact. For instance, the masonry, to include the stonework and brick, will be repaired as necessary, cleaned and painted and the porch along the facade will be stabilized and repainted. The soffits, eaves and roof features will also be repaired and repainted. Astor House – Rehabilitation The interior of the Astor House retains little historic character. Interior Spaces Standards However, some of the defining physical and spatial components will be retained and integrated into the programming of the FAC. These include, mainly, the historic experience of entry from 12th Street, the original stair, and the layout of the 1st floor. New Addition and Rehabilitation The new addition, informed by the Astor House, is compatible connector at Standards for in size, scale, materials and location with the historic building north/rear New Additions and, thus, meets the Standards. Conceptually, the addition and elevation materials being proposed are creative enough to house and highlight the work/mission of the FAC, yet subordinate to the Astor House, which retains a position of integrity and prominence on the public corner. The connection, proposed through the atria, or ’soft touch,’ provides a clear yet gentle transition from old to new with minimal disturbance to the historic materiality of the north elevation of the Astor House.
CONCLUSION: The rehabilitation project as proposed by the architectural team at Schwab & Daughters is consistent with the historic character of the Astor House as well as compatible with the 12th Street National Register Historic District in which it is located within and intrinsically connected to.
Colorado Historical Foundation PO Box 363 Golden Colorado 80402
City of Golden Memorandum
To: City Council, Historic Preservation Board From: Steve Glueck, Assistant to the City Manager Thru: Jason Slowinski, City Manager Date: April 27, 2021 Re: Citizen Question re Astor House Site Plan and HPB Review Process.
Background: By email dated April 19, 2021, Mr. Brian Quarnstrom inquired whether the proposed addition on the north side of the Astor House currently in the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) Certificate of Appropriateness review process, and next proceeding to the Planning Commission site development plan review process, should trigger the Golden City Charter provision whereby the sale or disposal of certain city property can only occur upon an affirmative vote of Golden electors. Mr. Quarnstrom specifically cites City Resolution 244 in his inquiry. Staff’s response to the inquiry includes the following points:
While Resolution 244 took the step of designating the Astor House property as a municipal park within the City of Golden, the use of the property for much of the past decades also qualifies the property as subject to the City Charter provision regarding disposal. This issue is not in dispute.
It should be noted that Resolution 244 designated the entire parcel at 822 12th Street, “together with all improvements thereon” as the municipal park. The designation was not intended to be only the currently landscaped portion north of the building.
In response to the recent citizen inquiry, the City Attorney, Mr. Williamson replied within an April 21, 2021 email, reminding all of the determination in 2020 that only a transaction wherein the City “fully divests its rights in the property conveyed” would trigger the election requirement of the City Charter. An excerpt from the City Attorney’s email follows:
Last year, in connection with the re-financing of the COPs used to finance 311 10th street, we found and reviewed case law dealing with municipal restrictions on the “disposition” of property. Based upon case law that we were not aware of in 2018, we concluded that a lease (even a long term lease) of City property did not constitute a “disposition” of the property that would invoke the election requirement of Charter Section 15.3. The case stands for the proposition that “disposition” requires that the City fully divest its rights in the property conveyed, and that a conveyance of fee title with a reverter after 99 years was a lease, and not a “disposition”. (see Centennial Properties v. Littleton, 390 P.2d 471 (Colo. 1964)) Accordingly, when the City considers the lease of a park, or public building, or any other property to which the restriction of Sec. 15.3 would apply, an election is NOT required by that section. Rather the lease can be authorized by the enactment of an ordinance, which make the decision a policy decision of council.
All of this was relayed to City Council when it considered Ord. No. 2155 to authorize the Astor House lease. A public hearing was held in conjunction with that ordinance. Council could have referred the lease to an election, but there was no suggestion at that time by the public (including Mr. Quarnstrom) that such an election was the better way to proceed as a matter of policy, which Mr. Quarnstrom now suggests. Presumably, by enactment of the ordinance after the public hearing process, Council was satisfied that the best policy in this circumstance was to proceed to authorize the lease by ordinance.
As such, staff recommends the determination that the construction of an addition that would increase the size of the Astor House and thereby reduce the size of the landscaped portion of the lot is not the elimination of the park as designated by Resolution 244, since the designation includes the entire lot and improvements.
In conclusion, staff recommends that the appropriateness of the addition proposed to be added to the north side of the Astor House is a policy matter to be addressed in the upcoming community review processes and their associated public hearings, rather than through the City Charter provisions related to the disposal of certain City properties.
Attachment: Council Resolution 244 Proposed Plot Plan
Page 2
51'-2" 57'-10" 97'-2" +/- 3'-0" WASH HOUSE 140'-0"
33'-8" DEMO WOOD FRAME
39'-4" ADDITION AND EXTERIOR STAIRS 5'-8" 20'-0" 22'-10" +
Foothills Art Center at the Astor House
Historic Preservation Board Submission
04 / 06 / 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation 4 ... and New Additions to Historic Buildings 8 Historic Photos 9 Building Addition Massing 10 Materials 11 Perforated Metal Screen 12 Schematic Design Drawings Site Plan + Image Examples 13 Floor Plans 14 Exterior Elevations 15 Historic Character 16 Rendering 17
Appendix Comprehensive Historic Timeline 18 The Astor House has always been a canvas, a backdrop, for activity.
The Astor House has a storied history: it’s the first stone hotel built in Colorado, and the builder spitefully built the east elevation around a neighbor’s encroaching window (they later filled in the hole when the offending building was demolished). Dynamite destroyed the windows in 1881 from a grand re-opening celebration gone awry; charred framing from the fires in 1904 and 1908 presently exist throughout the building. It’s rumored that Ida Goetze installed Golden’s first bathtub, where a soak cost 25 cents. The potential demolition of the Astor House for a parking lot was the unifying cause that sparked the formation of the Golden Landmarks Association.
For 148 years, the Astor House was a lively hub as a hotel, boarding house, and historical museum. Since 2015, when the City of Golden embarked on a costly stabilization, rehabilitation, and asbestos abatement effort, the building has sat empty, gutted to the studs.
Foothills Art Center is thrilled with the opportunity to activate this space once again. The rehabilitation that we propose will provide critical interior and exterior upgrades to the building’s historic portions - repairs to spalling stone and chipping paint, updates to the building systems, and replacement of interior finishes. Our proposed addition includes a necessary code-compliant egress stair and elevator, accessible restrooms, and open, flexible art galleries connected with the freshly landscaped Yard. Our historic architect has worked closely with Scott Greer, the City of Golden’s Chief Building Official, to identify code upgrades to the existing handrail so that the interior stair can remain in place while safely providing the required egress. The Astor House will return to being an activity hub for the community of Golden, with art classrooms on the ground floor and artist studio spaces on the second floor.
Our guide is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for the Astor House’s proposed rehabilitation. We have combed through archived images at Denver Public Library and The Golden History Museum and pored over the Historic Structure Report from 2020, the Architectural Inventory Form from 1998, and the 1972 National Register of Historic Places. We especially appreciate information being shared with us by Richard Gardner, Peter Ewers, and Nathan Richie.
This package introduces our team’s Schematic Design for the rehabilitation and addition for the Astor House for your consideration. In this packet, you will find:
• a detailed explanation of how our design meets the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation • our design process for the building form of the addition and the materials that we propose • our proposed schematic site plan, floor plans, and exterior elevations • details regarding our methods for honoring the historic building in our design • a schematic rendering of our proposed addition and rehabilitation, with site context • a thorough historic timeline paired with available historical photographs
Thank you for your dedication to preserving this piece of history and for considering our team’s design of a thoughtful addition to bringing the Astor House into the future. Our team shares the Historic Preservation Board’s interest in rehabilitating this significant building and creating an inviting space that can serve Golden for generations. We hope you will grant this project a Certificate of Appropriateness to proceed with our Site Development Plan Application and continue with building design and documentation.
Angela Schwab, Architect, Schwab & Daughters with Ben Heppe, Historic Architect on behalf of Foothills Art Center, Executive Director Hassan Najjar, and the Board of Directors and Staff 3 Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation
The following introductory paragraph and bulleted points are copied from the National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior website (nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm); our responses follow each of the numbered Standards for Rehabilitation.
The following Standards for Rehabilitation are the criteria used to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a certified rehabilitation. The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located.
The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
• The Astor House has served a variety of uses since it was constructed in 1867. Originally used as a hotel, often frequented by dignitaries and government officials conducting business at the adjacent Loveland Building, it has also served as a boarding house, apartments, and most recently as a house museum. Since the building was saved from demolition in the 1970’s, the Astor House has struggled to find a use that balances honoring the historic building with one that can also garner public excitement and yield steady economic viability. With the Foothills Art Center taking up residence, the function of the Astor House will once again be a contemporary use that draws the public into the building. This will provide an opportunity to continue to convey the rich history of the Astor House in a meaningful way, while also expanding upon that story with the addition and the Foothills Art Center’s occupancy.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
• The historic exterior of the Astor House (1867 stone building and 1894 brick addition) will be retained and restored in its entirety. Extant historic fabric and character defining features will be repaired so that the legacy of the Astor House will continue to live on for future generations.
• Exterior Historic Fabric: The historic building will be unchanged from an exterior standpoint; the primary South facade will be fully restored under this project by way of repairing deteriorated stone walls, wood windows, the south balcony, and doors. The west and east elevations of the historic Astor House will also be unaffected by the proposed modifications (except where restoration of the historic building is necessary). Please refer to the annotated elevations included in this packet for description of proposed interventions to the exterior of the Astor House.
• Interior Historic Fabric: Historic fabric at the interior of the Astor House has been greatly impacted as a result of a recent (2015) asbestos remediation project in-which 4 much of the remaining interior historic fabric was lost. The original wood stair remains, as do bits of horse hair plaster and original 1x floor boards at the second floor. The proposal to return the Astor House to service includes retaining the original stair in its original location (with minor adjustments to bring it into code compliance). Retaining the historic stair in-situ will preserve the original entry experience and layout at the first floor. Historically, upon entering the Astor House, visitors were immediately greeted with the open wood stair leading to the second floor, with the historic Dining room to the west of the stair and smaller Parlor room to the east; this historic spacial relationship will be preserved going forward. Additionally, interpretive signage is planned for this area (adjacent to the original entry) to describe the original entry and use of the Astor House. Other remaining historic fabric will be restored in-situ, including the existing 1x floor boards at the second floor and remnants of the horse hair plaster at the first floor.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
• No changes to the existing historic building are proposed. Only rehabilitation of deteriorated elements at the exterior is proposed — please refer to annotated exterior elevations for proposed treatments.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
• The Astor House has 3 different periods of significance:
1867-1893: The primary period of significance for the Astor House from the date of original construction in the Territorial Capital period of Golden until the end of the Astor House’s hotel era. 1894-1926: A secondary period of significance is the era in which the Astor House was operated as a boarding house by Ida Goetze (also when the brick addition was added to the north side of the building). 1971-1973: Another period of significance when the citizens of Golden rallied to save the Astor House. This initiated the Golden Landmarks Association and began awareness and action for historic preservation in Golden.
• The exterior appearance is a combination of the primary period of significance with modifications made during the secondary period of significance (including the 1894 brick addition and modifications to the 1867 roof). As noted in response to SOI standard #2 above, the exterior of the Astor House will be restored, including: • Repair and/or replacement of existing spalled stone within 3 feet of grade and other minor repair of delaminated stone throughout the 1867 building • Repair of minor spalled brick and repointing where necessary at the 1894 brick addition. • Removal of peeling paint at all existing exterior masonry surfaces (stone and brick) and repaint with a color to match the existing white on the building • Repair/repainting of the historically appropriate, 6-over-6 wood windows (replaced in 1994) • Repair to the character defining south balcony
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 5 • The exterior of the Astor House is proposed to be preserved and repaired/ rehabilitated. The Astor House is minimally significant for its architecture, however, the character-defining stone masonry at the 1867 building and brick masonry at the 1894 building will be rehabilitated.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
• As previously noted, interior historic fabric has been greatly compromised largely due to a 2015 asbestos remediation project that removed much of the existing interior walls and finishes. The original stair is extant and is proposed to remain and be rehabilitated to meet current code requirements. The stair will remain in its original location and will assist to describe the original layout of the 1st floor of the 1867 stone building with the large Dining Room to the west of the stair and smaller Parlor room to the east of the stair. Original floor boards are extant at the second floor and are proposed to be refinished in-situ. Exterior windows have been replaced many times, however, their most recent replacement in 1994 was conducted with historically appropriate windows that match the original 6 over 6 muntin pattern — these windows are proposed to be rehabilitated in-situ as they are in generally good condition. No other historic features remain that have not otherwise been previously noted.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
• The exterior of the Astor House is in good condition for a building of its vintage. Only gentle means to remove dirt and repair spalled brick, stone, and peeling paint, will be employed. Methods employed on the historic building will include scraping and sanding of existing failing paint from stone, brick, or wood to achieve a properly prepared surface in which to receive new paint. No sandblasting or chemical treatments are proposed.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
• The Astor House has a rich history which includes many out-buildings constructed over the years and later removed by fire or human intervention. Some remnants of these structures’ foundations are still present according to ground penetrating survey/ radar work that has been done previously. The same archeologist is on the team and will serve as an archeological monitor during all ground disturbing activities; construction will be paused accordingly if discovery is made of any subsurface artifacts.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
• The goal of the rehabilitation of the Astor House and the new addition at the rear is to re-energize and activate the corner of 12th and Arapahoe, while also providing a new home for the Foothills Art Center. Building support space for the addition 6 includes (3) ADA compliant restrooms, an elevator, and modern egress stair — none of these functions are possible within the existing historic Astor House due to structural and spatial constraints. The remaining programmed space within the addition is comprised primarily of entry/reception and gallery space for the Foothills Art Center.
• New Addition Massing: The proposed addition takes its cues in massing from the original Astor House as well as the adjacent Loveland building. The primary spine of the addition is a simple extrusion of the gabled brick form that was constructed in 1894; this creates the backbone of the addition and will be constructed with modern brick to give the addition a gravity that “founds” it to the earth and applies a feeling of permanence. To achieve the square footage requirements to fit an elevator, ADA compliant restrooms, and programmed space for the Foothills Art Center, it is necessary to expand the addition to the east and west of the “spine.” This is where the design looks to the future while respecting the past; simple rectangular masses push out from the east and west side of the gable element. These are intentionally simple masses in an effort to not distract from the existing historic building.
• New Addition Finishes: The original Astor House was painted white very early in its existence. Both the stone and brick were painted white, and the underlying texture of stone and brick creates a “texture mural” of sorts that naturally scales down as it moves from the original stone building to the brick addition (south to north). The proposed cladding at the 2021 addition will continue to express interest in scale of the exterior texture with the application of perforated white metal screens over a cementitious smooth coat back-up wall. The proposed cladding system will be complementary to the original building in its scale, form and color, while also being distinguishable from the original and of its own time. Finally, the entire proposed addition will be shorter in height than the original 1867 building — please refer to the elevations to clearly see this.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
• The addition will be connected to the historical building with a “light touch.” This +/- 5’-0” link will be constructed of glass storefront and will connect the existing building to the 1894 brick addition. The atria will allow the “light touch” connection to be perceived from the exterior as well as the interior, and will minimally impact the existing building such that if the addition ever needed to be removed, the original historic building will remain unscathed.
7 Secretary’s Standards for New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings
Rehabilitation is the only treatment that allows expanding a historic building by enlarging it with an addition. Rehabilitation guidelines emphasize that new additions should be considered only after it is determined that meeting specific new needs cannot be achieved by altering non-character defining interior spaces. If the use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an attached exterior addition may be considered. A new addition must preserve the building’s historic character, form, significant materials and features. It must be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and design of the historic building while differentiated from the historic building. It should also be designed and constructed so that the essential form and integrity of the historic building would remain if the addition were to be removed in the future. There is no formula or prescription for designing a compatible new addition or related new construction, nor is there generally only one possible design approach that will meet the Standards.
The following bullets explain how the proposed addition meets the above requirements:
• To provide universal access to the Astor House, as well as to bring it up to current code requirements, it is necessary to provide an elevator, accessible restrooms, and second egress stair from the second floor. Due to spatial, structural, and programmatic constraints, a new addition is necessary in order to provide the noted code upgrades while retaining the character defining spaces and features within the historic building.
• The new addition is subordinate to the original Astor House. The addition is proposed on the north side of the building (the rear of the building); the primary and secondary facades of the historic building will be unaltered and restored. All character defining features of the historic building, including the south balcony, will be retained.
• The massing of the new addition is derived from the 1894 brick addition, is intentionally simple in its form, and is restricted in height to be lower than the historic building. Overall the mass is compatible with the historic building while not distracting, allowing the historic building to remain as the focal point.
• The addition is compatible from an exterior cladding standpoint in that it utilizes a simple perforated metal screen over a cementitious smooth coat (all white — to remain compatible with the historic building). The intention is to be complimentary of the historic building in color and texture while also being distinctively separate.
• The addition will be connected to the historic building by a glass atria that will provide a “light touch” that will physically and visually separate the addition from the historic building.
• The view shed between the adjacent Loveland building and the Astor House will be maintained with the proposed addition occurring at the rear of the property. The shared history and spatial relationship between the Loveland building and Astor House is a character defining feature as noted in the nomination form for the National Register listing and will be preserved going forward.
• If the addition were to be removed in the future, the historic Astor House can remain unaffected.
8 1881 - grand re-opening 1868 - Astor House (left) and relationship 1874 - Astor House circled 1900 - porch removed, street trees planted to Loveland Building
early 1900s 1918 - roof shown hipped 1980s - painted gray with white windows, 2020 - painted white; windows, doors, and deck dormers have been added painted maroon
The historic sandstone and brick portions of the building have been painted numerous times; historic photos show the building unpainted through 1900, then later painted gray, and, currently, white. Windows, sills, and headers have previously been unpainted or painted white; they are currently painted maroon. We propose to repaint the building white, paint the deck a medium brown, and paint the windows and doors ochre, which is the current interior window and trim color. FAC + Astor House historic photos All paint selections will be mocked up and selected with CoG and historic consultant input. 9 04 / 06 / 21 SCHEMATIC DESIGN - BUILDING ADDITION MASSING
To determine the massing for this addition to the Astor House, we used
LOVELAND BUILDING WASHINGTON STREET the same logic behind the addition to the adjacent Loveland Building (1) 1863 1 and the previous addition to the Lake House (3). The gabled form of the 1894 brick addition (4) was extended north across the site (5), similarly 2 1865-66 to how the Loveland Building was extended across its property (2). ARAPAHOE STREET Additional programming space is added through rectangular volumes to the east and west (6). The building addition stops at about the northern LAKE HOUSE 12TH STREET edge of the former Wash House (7), providing space for code-compliant stairs, elevator, and restrooms, plus a dedicated vestibule, entry, and 1867 galleries for Foothills Art Center.
3 4 5 6 7
stop addition at north end of wash house
1867 1894 2021 ADDITION
“Stunted T” “T” Extrude 1894 Rectangular Adjust volumes Stone * Brick Addition addition, remove addition, similar to fit to site + + Wash House * crumbling wash footprint to 1867 add glass “light Local material, house building; retains touch” between innovative, current Similar proportions, extruded gabled historic and for 1867 window scale and roof, adds space to ne w buildings placement relate to East and West original stone building FAC + Astor House building massing
* historic volumes are simplified for diagrammatic studies 10 04 / 06 / 21 PROPOSED MATERIALS FOR ADDITION EXISTING ASTOR HOUSE MATERIALS
METAL SCREEN BRICK BRICK, 1894 SANDSTONE, 1867 OVER CEMENTITIOUS SMOOTH COAT Blend of whites and light grays; Installed First addition; painted white West Elevation White perforated metal panels, mounted several inches with modern tooling and techniques, and Pronounced mortar joints, painted white outside of smooth coated cementitious finish; clean struck mortar joints perforation size and/or density distinguishes select panels to relate to window pattern on the historic building
STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND DOORS SANDSTONE, 1867 Bronze Propose repair and repaint the E + N Elevations windows and doors ochre, which is the Rougher joints, painted white current interior window and trim color. The deck would be painted medium FAC + Astor House brown; the exact color will be selected materials with CoG and historic consultant input 11 04 / 06 / 21 Leawood Speculative Offices Interior Guardrail Screen The Statesman Residences Kansas City, by El Dorado Vancouver BC, by Haeccity Studio Architecture Dhaka, Bangladesh, by Studio Morphogenesis Limited
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN
Of the primary materials proposed for Foothills Art Center’s addition to the Astor House - brick, glass, and metal - the perforated metal screen is the one that creates our desired qualities of lightness, attraction, and playfulness.
The screened facade covers both solid walls and window openings; this creates delight in pattern, light, and view, as the visitor discovers shadows, movement, and color framed by the perforations.
The galleries within the addition are for art display; the screen, which wraps the east and west volumes of the addition, likewise becomes a canvas for displaying art. Like the white-painted walls of the brick and stone Astor House, the screen can be projected on or lit with colored lights, turning the entire building, inside and out, into an art gallery. This feature enlivens and illuminates the building without compromising the historic fabric of the Astor House.
The screen interprets the historic building in a modern way; it serves as a tool for noticing details of the original Astor House. It will attract visitors, drawing them into the museum and creative artist studio spaces.
Layered over the smooth coated exterior walls of the sides of the building addition, the perforated metal screen performs many tasks: • is a thin and light material that evokes an ethereal volume; • while the base of the building is grounded, the screen creates the illusion of floating and lightness; • projects shadows onto the wall or glass behind, adding depth and layers of light; • serves as a blank canvas for occasional projections or lights ; • the panels divide the volume of the addition into smaller pieces; • the panels and seams reference the historic window openings of the original building; FAC + Astor House • the perforations add texture to the exterior walls at a more discreet scale than the original stone and brick; • the screen simplifies the material palette by serving as a unifying building skin, a light filtering screen, and a guardrail on the north deck perforated screen 12 04 / 06 / 21 ASTOR YARD
Celebrating and honoring the historic building and its uses, our goal is for the Astor House to become the Jewel of Downtown Golden. We have designed the entire site to serve as a gallery: the yard to be a beacon that attracts visitors, and the building a glowing lantern to draw people in.
The proposed plaza at 12th and Arapahoe Streets would coordinate with the design and construction of the overall Arapahoe Street plan.
The proposed addition stops at the northern boundary of the existing Wash House; the remaining yard space will be preserved as green/landscaped space within a fenced boundary. New landscape features are intended to be simple and unobtrusive, allowing the relationship between the landscape and the building to be largely preserved. The relationship of the fenced yard to the surrounding area is an important design feature to preserve; although modified for improvements in the proposed design, the relationship is maintained.
The existing historic building will be protected by way of improving the existing drainage around the building and ensuring that plantings are held away from the building to protect the existing foundation walls. The existing rock designating the yard as Colorado Territorial Park will be preserved.
small screening at street with stage layered trees, plantings, and special seating behind a low wall fixtures overhead
terraced seating at edge
native plantings open, central lawn for performances, events, classes, and gathering T E E R T S
E O
PA H screen fence at east A R plaza A edge becomes gate red colored concrete with sand finish
FAC + Astor House SD site plan
13 04 / 06 / 21
N O R TH 12TH STREET DECK
UP UP H20 ENTRY 40 SF COMMUNITY GALLERY 608 SF RR 1 62 SF SECOND FLOOR STORAGE FLAT FLAT 1065 SF ROOF ROOF GALLERY 1122 SF RR 2 42 SF
VEST. ENTRY 88 SF 184 SF MOP 28 SF RR 3 60 SF
"LIGHT TOUCH" "LIGHT TOUCH" 102 SF 102 SF
CONNECT TO NORTH TEACHING BASEMENT LOUNGE 372 SF KITCHEN 372 SF
"DINING ROOM" "PARLOR" ARTIST OPEN STUDIO CLASSROOM 942 SF 693 SF CLASSROOM 240 SF
BALCONY
FAC + Astor House SD floor plans
ROOF 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR BASEMENT 14 04 / 06 / 21 BRICK - 1894 STONE - 1867
3 3 4 1 5 7 5 7 6 6 2 2 8 WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION
1867 2021 9 4 3 4 3
5 6 2
EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
SCHEMATIC DESIGN ELEVATIONS
Notes pertain to both the stone (1867) building and the brick (1894) building, typical
1 existing fascia, trim, etc., shall be scraped, sanded, and repainted at the historic buildings, typ. 2 remove loose paint, typ., from grade level to approximately 3’-0”. underlying stone shall be repaired/replaced accordingly. Existing deteriorated mortar shall be repointed with historically appropriate mortar, typ. 3 existing roof was replaced in 2017 and is proposed to remain going forward 4 repair/replace damaged shake siding 5 scrape, sand, and repaint all existing windows in their entirety. (existing windows were replaced in the stone building in 1994 to match the original 6 over 6 muntin pattern) 6 the exterior shall receive a new coat of paint to match existing. Existing loose, cracked paint shall be thoroughly removed from the existing stone prior to re-painting 7 existing balcony (reconstructed in 2006) shall be repaired and repainted existing original entry to remain. all doors shall be reconstructed to match the original 8 FAC + Astor House NW STREET VIEW SW STREET VIEW condition - OR - scraped, sanded, and repainted if original door is extant SD elevations
9 height of proposed addition does not exceed height of the original 1867 stone building 15 04 / 06 / 21 DECK
UP UP H20 ENTRY 40 SF COMMUNITY GALLERY 608 SF RR 1 62 SF STORAGE FLAT FLAT SECOND FLOOR Schwab & Daughters LLC 1065 SF Architecture 326 Gregory Drive ROOF ROOF GALLERY Golden, Colorado 80403 1122 SF 303.819.5965 RR 2 schwabanddaughters.com 42 SF
VEST. ENTRY 88 SF 184 SF MOP 28 SF RR 3 60 SF
"LIGHT TOUCH" "LIGHT TOUCH"1 GX.2
102 SF . 102 SF R 1
L
C 3'-43/4" 3'-43/4"
2'-93/4" GX.2
NEW (1) HANDRAIL AT EAST DN. SIDE OF EXISTING HISTORIC STAIR (EXISTING STAIR HAS 1 1'-0" HANDRAIL CURRENTLY). NEW CONNECT HANDRAIL SHALL BE HISTORIC STAIR AXON CONSTRUCTED WITH CODE 2 REQUIRED TOP AND BOTTOM EXTENSIONS. RE: 1/GX.1 The proposed Ground Floor Plan conveys the general layout of the original-REFER TO IEBC 805.9 plan, AND and the “grand staircase”TO NORTH will remain. 805.9.1 BASEMENT TEACHING BASEMENT NEW/RECONSTRUCTED ACCESS EXISTING HISTORIC STAIR: ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1867. GUARDRAIL AT SECOND STAIR IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN IN USE AS AN EGRESS STAIR LOUNGE FLOOR STAIR OPENING TO FROM THE SECOND FLOOR WITH IMPROVEMENTS AS FOLLOWS MATCH ORIGNAL HISTORIC AND NOTED ELSEWHERE ON THIS DRAWING: KITCHEN - EXISTING STAIR IS 2'-11" WIDE OVERALL WITH A GUARDRAIL. NEW GUARDRAIL 372 SF SHALL BE 42" A.F.F. PROPOSED 28" CLEAR BETWEEN HANDRAIL AND 372 SF GUARDRAIL. CALCULATED EGRESS WIDTH REQUIREMENT PER 1005.3.1 OF THE IBC = 24.4" - THE EXISTING RISERS DO NOT MEET CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STAIRS. THE EXISTING PROVIDE NEW WOOD RISERS ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN - EXISTING GUARDRAIL TO 42" A.F.F. HISTORIC STAIRWAY WIDTHS & RISER HEIGHTS MAY BE LINE OF EXISTING TO MATCH ORIGINAL. Classroom APPROVED PER SECTION 1203.3 OF THE IEBC FLOOR - FLOOR IS 932 SF 2'-11" (EXISTING HISTORIC GUARD PROPOSED TO BE CUT RAIL IS 25" HIGH) THE EXISTING GUARDRAIL AND HANDRAIL ARE BACK +/- 1'-0" TO - REFER TO IEBC 805.11 - PROPOSED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS: 1'-0" PROVIDE CODE - THE EXISTING GUARDRAIL IS 25" HIGH. 805.11.2 REQUIRED MIN. 2'-4 3/8" REVISIONS THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION INCLUDES HEADROOM OF 80", RECONSTRUCTING THE GUARDRAIL TO RE: 1/GX.2 No. Description Date MATCH THE ORIGINAL AT THE CODE REQUIRED 42" MIN. PER IEBC 805.11 EXISTING ORIGINAL - A NEW HANDRAIL WILL BE ADDED TO THE REMOVE PORTION OF 3'-6" GUARDRAIL TO BE EAST SIDE OF THE STAIR. COMPLYING MIN. EXISTING 2ND FLOOR AND RECONSTRUCTED TO CODE WITH IEBC 805.9 AND 805.9.1 FRAMING - PROVIDE NEW REQUIRED HEIGHT OF 42" - - THE SECOND FLOOR STAIR OPENING HEADER & TRIMMED REFER TO IEBC 805.11 SHALL BE RE-FRAMED TO PROVIDE OPENING TO PROVIDE MINIMUM OF 80" HEAD CLEARANCE IN MINIMUM CODE REQUIRED ACCORDANCE WITH THE IBC AND ANSI HEADROOM CLEARANCE OF A117.1 80" Open Studio SECOND FLOOR 942 SF - THE EXISTING HISTORIC STAIR IS PROPOSED TO 110'-2" 11" REMAIN OPEN ATMOSPHERICALLY AS IT CONNECTS ONLY "DINING ROOM" UP THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS. PLEASE REFER TO IBC COPYRIGHT 2021 - THESE DRAWINGS AND THE DESIGN 1019.3 THEY REPRESENT REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF SCHWAB "PARLOR" 7 3/4" (1) NEW HANDRAIL & DAUGHTERS LLC AND ARE INTENDED TO BE USED FOR - THE BUILDING IS NOT CURRENTLY PROTECTED WITH AN AFFIXED TO EAST PRICING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION AT THE STATED ARTIST OPEN STUDIO CLASSROOM AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM. GOING FORWARD THE WALL WITH CODE LOCATION. ANY UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR REQUIRED 4'-41/8" BUILDING WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN NFPA 13 OTHER USE OF THESE DRAWINGS OR DESIGN IS CLASSROOMCOMPLIANT AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM EXTENTIONS. TOP OF STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
942 SF 3'-51/8" 693 SF HANDRAIL IS 36" A.F.F. -REFER TO IEBC 805.9 240 SF AND 805.9.1
6'-9" ASTOR HOUSE
FOOTHILLS ART CENTER EXISTING HISTORIC STAIR TREADS, RISERS, 822 12th STREET AND STRINGER TO GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 REMAIN
EXISTING HISTORIC ENTRANCE THIS SHALL REMAIN AS AN ENTRANCE/EXIT SCHEMATIC DESIGN
PROJECT NUMBER 20160
BALCONY SECOND FLOOR BALCONY 8 1/8" DAT 02.25.2021 E AVG. RISERAVG. HT. FIRST FLOOR DRAWN BH BY 100'-0" CHECKED Checker 1867 1ST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN BY 11" 11" TREAD DEPTH GX.2 CODE - Second Floor Stair CODE - First Floor Stair Enlarged N HISTORIC STAIR SECTION - EXISTING 4 3 1 CODE - HISTORIC STAIR 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0" 3/3/2021 10:26:38 AM 10:26:38 3/3/2021 The interior layout of the 1867 stone building will be maintained and honored in our proposed rehabilitation. The “grand staircase” will receive code upgrades to the handrail and guardrail so that it can safely serve as a required means of egress. The Classrooms on the ground floor will be named ROOF “Dining Room”2ND and FLOOR “Parlor” to reference their historic1ST use. FLOOR The walls on either side of the stairBASEMENT will be partially removed to open up the classroom spaces, but the locations of walls and doors will be noted on the floor to preserve the historic plan. As feasible, examples of the rough-cut wood studs, horsehair plaster, floorboards, and original woodwork will be preserved in place.
The historic entry on 12th Street will be maintained, offering direct access to the classrooms and second floor artist open studios. An interpretation of the history of the Astor House and the stories the building embodies will be displayed adjacent to the historic Main Entrance in the former Main Hall.
The perforated metal screen serves as a tool for noticing details of the historic Astor House.
WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION The metal panels on the west elevation reference the 2-over-2 window pattern on the stone and brick portions of the Astor House. While the panels will all be painted the same white, the perforation size and/or density will change at the panels referencing the windows, serving as a visual cue to connect the modern addition with the historic building. Extensive panel mockups will be completed, with the architect working closely with Foothills Art Center, Happel & Associates, City of Golden Planning Staff, and CoG’s Historic Consultant. FAC + Astor House historic character
16 04 / 06 / 21
EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
NW STREET VIEW SW STREET VIEW FAC + Astor House rendered view
17 04 / 06 / 21 HISTORIC TIMELINE
Text from Astor House Historic Structure Report, May 2020 Images from Golden History Museum, Denver Public Library, Google Maps
1859 - Golden City founded (Boston Company arrived around the same time, transforming Golden)
1862 - Golden becomes the Territorial Capital of the Colorado Territory
1863 - Construction begins on the adjacent Loveland Building
1865 - Seth Lake acquires the Astor House property, west of the Loveland Building, initially building a wood house, frame barn, and root cellar. (The property was originally larger, extending 40 feet north.)
1866 - The Loveland building is expanded to accommodate the Colorado Territorial Legislature (which met in Golden from 1862-1867) 1866
1867 - The Astor House was built of hand-cut sandstone (locally quarried). Its basic original configuration was a stunted “T” with a simple first floor plan of two rooms and a staircase, simple low gable roof with single stack chimneys, double hung wooden windows, and a second story wooden balcony spanning 2/3 of the front. Owner Seth Lake developed the property as a hotel serving government officials and businessmen drawn to the Territorial Capital which met in the adjacent Loveland building. The Astor House is believed to be the first stone hotel in all of Colorado 1868 1874 - Colorado School of Mines is established 1874
1876 - Colorado became a state 1876
FAC + Astor House historic timeline
18 04 / 06 / 21 1869 - A large new barn is built with a corral
1881 - The Astor House celebrated a “grand re-opening” by owner Seth Lake. To help celebrate, Lake hired Fred Sears to plant a couple of sticks of dynamite across the street. The explosion destroyed original doors and windows (as well as blew out every window in the nearby Judge De France’s building)
1885 - Seth Lake sells the Astor House to C.W. Mon Pleasure, who re-named it Castle Rock House
1886 - The balcony was removed to comply with Golden’s ordinances mandating the removal of such balconies. Later in 1886, fire broke out in the privy, destroyed the barn, and damaged the original rear annex of the hotel. The barn was re-built to the same dimensions and footprint of the original, and the annex was partially re-built
1887 - The second story door was converted to another window after a guest accidentally exited the doorway
1891 - The Astor House had a series of different proprietors between 1888 and 1892. The Hotel was purchased in 1891 by Sheriff John A. Hoagland, who rebranded the hotel back to the Astor House
1894 - The Astor House was bought by Ida Louise Froeb Goetze, a German immigrant who turned it into a boarding house. She re-named it the Hotel Boston. Ida Goetze operated the boarding house until 1926. In 1894 Ida Goetze did major renovations. The rear annex of the Astor House was replaced with a new 2-story brick addition. The rear addition also included a 1-story porch extension. The root cellar was likely dismantled at this time and a new brick wash house (matching the addition) was built in its place. The large barn was torn down and replaced with a new smaller barn at the northwest corner of the property
1895 - The third set of windows were installed. Sometime between 1890 and 1895 the east wall of the Astor House was patched to repair an encroachment of a bay window from the adjacent Clark residence
1900 19 1902 - Windows were replaced for the fourth time with 2 over 2 double hung windows
1904 and 1908 - Two separate fires occurred. The 1904 fire was minor, incurring damage to the main story flooring. Damage was repaired. The second (1908) fire was considered “major,” with most damage occurring to the garret, roof, and second floor. The roof was replaced with a corrugated iron roof and gutter system. The west side of the upper floor was repaired
1911 - Ida Goetze converts the building back into a hotel known as the Imperial, a use that continued until 1917
1918-1920 - Sometime between 1918 and 1920 frame dormers were built with windows and decorative wood shingle siding, with the garret converted to a full apartment use
1920 - The basement beneath the main structure was excavated to house the building’s furnace
1936 - Oscar Goetze, son of Ida, and his wife Irene took over management of the boarding house
1956 - The Astor House was sold to John R. and Esther M. Stevens 1913 1957 - The Astor House was sold to Eileen Marshall, who with her husband Edwin operated it as the Marshall Boarding House. It was configured as several apartments, and in 1969 Edwin and daughter Edwina became co-owners 1915 1971 - A proposal by Golden downtown improvement district to remove the Astor House failed. Golden citizens banded together and the Golden Landmarks Association (GLA) was formed and the Astor House was saved and partially restored as a result
1973 - Astor House becomes the second Jefferson County site listed on the National Register of Historic Places
1976 - The wooden porch/balcony on 12th street was reconstructed to evoke the porch that was originally on the Astor House, and the second story door was re-established. The Astor House was designated a Centennial Site by the Jefferson County Historical Commission
1976 - The open property north of the Astor House became a grass covered park and dedicated as Colorado Territory Park
1918 20 1980-2010 - During this time period the Golden Civic Foundation provided more than $83,000 for Astor House improvements, including painting, carpeting, furnishings, electrical repair, and fence 1980s
1990 - A historic ornamental iron fence crafted in 1899 was installed around the grounds of the Astor House. The fence was salvaged from the Masterson home on nearby 12th street
1991 - The Astor House was designated at the municipal level as part of the 12th Street Historic District
1994 - The Astor House was structurally stabilized with laminated beams. Windows of the stone Astor House were replaced with their fifth set, replicas of the original 6 over 6 double hung windows
1996 - Golden Landmarks Association received a State Historic Fund grant of $100,000 for 3/21/2021 Astor House - Google Maps building stabilization and restoration Astor House
2003 - Friends of the Astor House (oversight group for the house museum) received a State Historic Fund grant of $110,000 for interior restoration and mechanical and electrical upgrades
2006 - South balcony rebuilt again based on historic evidence
2015 - The Astor House museum was closed. The City of Golden began a major stabilization and rehabilitation of the Astor House. During the rehabilitation, asbestos was uncovered and an aggressive and expensive asbestos mitigation effort was undertaken 2015
Image capture: Apr 2016 Images may be subject to copyright.
Brandon Williams
Photo - Oct 2016
2016 - Golden City Council commissioned a feasibility study of a beer museum in the Astor House. The study found the building’s existing size and location infeasibile for such a https://www.google.com/maps/place/Astor+House/@39.7550231,-105.2223548,3a,75y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNWfEX_mPCuHhW4sjmIOJZo6yTcNG8cnuPDtS0!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleuserconte… 1/2 museum to be self-sustaining
2017 - The roof the Astor House was replaced after a severe hail storm in Golden
2019 - Golden City Council began a “Request for Proposal” process to seek proposals for potential uses by lease or purchase of the Astor House, either for-profit or non-profit
2019 - Council favored proposals involving the sale or lease of the building, which requires a vote of the citizens; Council delays decision pending HPB and citizen input
2020 - Golden City Council requested Community Proposals for the Use of the Astor House. Two highly qualified submissions were received, from Golden Civic Foundation and Foothills Art Center; FAC is awarded the project
2021 - Schematic Design begins on the Foothills Art Center Rehabilitation and Addition to the Astor House 2021 21
DRAFT LETTER FOR HPB REVIEW
May 3, 2021
Honorable Mayor Laura Weinberg Members of Golden City Council City of Golden
Re: Enhancement of the Historic Preservation Board powers
Dear Mayor Weinberg and City Councilors:
During the Historic Preservation’s Board engagement in the zoning code re-write process with our staff and as a Board, the concept of enhancing the powers of the Board has been discussed. The Board understands the potential implications of the revised zoning regulations on the City’s Historic Districts and structures and notes that recent survey of the oldest structures in the City, the Territorial Capital Study, indicated that the integrity of most of the structures had deteriorated despite the City’s Historic District Residential Design Guidelines and the Board’s current suggestive powers.
The forthcoming zoning code re-write proposes revised massing regulations for new development, additions and infill within many areas of Golden, including the City’s three historic districts and individual properties with designations. The Board sees this code re-write as an opportunity to clarify how zoning affects the City’s historic districts and a review of Board’s powers as a part of that process as it may relate to form-types allowed in the Historic Districts.
The Board feels that the variety of form types, including the new preservation form types in the second draft, will generally serve the City’s Historic Districts better than the current code and will look to the code to provide expectations on rooflines, building orientation, overall design expectations for materials, porches and all public facing facades. The Board would like if the forthcoming preservation form types would allow the Board to be able to give some discretion as it relates to aspects related to architectural styles and forms/heights/rooflines related to those styles.
The Board feels they must have more authority on infill project form types during its review, noting that historic homes, be they contributing or not contributing, should retain the same form type when undergoing any type of remodel or expansion. The Board believes that their review would have more impact with more clearly defined roles for the Board’s input, especially on the larger scale projects and renovations of contributing structures. The Board suggests codifying a percentage of the original structure, including the façade, within a historic district be maintained (such as 30% to 50%) to provide clarity on when the demolition criteria apply, contextual front setbacks, and comparable neighborhood massing and materials to apply to historic structures and lots within historic neighborhoods.
The Board wishes for more code-based tools to incentivize preservation-minded infill and additions, while having the ability to protect the City’s historic districts from infill and additions that are not compatible with their contributing structures. Ensure the code rewrite reflects a fair process that aids in the preservation of the City’s historic resources and encourages context-sensitive infill and additions.
The Historic District Residential Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines) were drafted in 2007 and have served as the review standards for all alterations of contributing and noncontributing structures in the City since that time. The Board is committed to continuing to work to improve the Design Guidelines in response to the Code re-write. We will continue to engage in the process to ensure that preservation of City’s Historic Districts and structures are bolstered by the outcomes of the code.
Best Regards,
James Smith, Chair Historic Preservation Board
Page 2 Lauren Simmons
From: Dave Anderson < > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 12:47 PM To: Lauren Simmons Subject: Astor House HOB proposal
Lauren,
I am writing this in support of the recent proposal for the addition to and rehabilitation of the Astor House project. I think that the use of the Astor House property for the Foothills Art Center provides an excellent opportunity for a cultural amenity In downtown Golden. The actual design of the addition is a delightful piece of whimsy that truly represents a step in the right direction for our city. It provides a much needed break from what could have been just another dull and uninteresting addition to a city’s fabric.
In evaluating any impacts to an historic property, the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Historic Preservation state that a new design needs to respect the scale, massing and form of the existing building. It also needs to be obviously “new” both through materials and style, while not overwhelming the original building. The proposed design for this project is a masterful example of how to accomplish this balancing act. In addition, the use of a glass “link” provides a clear separation of new and old.
I especially like the use of the transparent steel screen on the building that gives it a sense of lightness while introducing a feeling of depth to the facade. The material palette is simple and the screen allows for people to “discover” the building as they approach and move around it.
The introduction of a fun and unique piece of architecture is a wonderful way to “say we have art and culture in our city” and one we should embrace with enthusiasm and smiles! Thank you to both the FAC and Schwab and Daughters for giving us such a delightful vision!
Dave Anderson, AIA Historic Preservation Architect Former DDA Chair Former HBP Chair -- Thanks,
Dave Anderson FREIGHT910
1 Astor House: Comments on Foothills Art Center April 6, 2021 Plan April 309, 2021
These comments reflect the thoughts of the members of the Astor House Alliance (AHA), an ad-hoc group of citizens encouraging the preservation and use of the Astor House. We appreciate your consideration of these suggestions and can provide additional information if needed.
Preservation of the Existing Structure We support the proposed rehabilitation and upgrades to the existing building as outlined in the proposal. These repairs and restorations, along with upgrades to systems and modifications to enhance accessibility, will enhance this public space a community resource.
Change in Selected Proposal A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, #1
This addition was not shown in the public proposal that was selected by City Council in 2020. If the lessee provides convincing justification for an addition, the massing, size and scale must be reduced without causing further incursion into the Astor Yard.
Appropriateness of the Proposed Addition New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, #9
Differentiation of Old vs. New. The proposed connection of the addition to the existing building, the glass “light touch” transition, is done with care to not impact the historic fabric of the Astor House. This band of separation provides ample visual cues to people to clearly distinguish the old from the new.
Compatibility. For any addition to the Astor House, an exterior covered in perforated white metal screen cladding is inappropriate. Extensive use of this cladding would not be sympathetic to the historic character and is a visual distraction. There are several building materials and surfaces that would be compatible with the design, materials, and feeling of the existing building while still differentiating the historic structure from the modern addition. Introducing expansive walls of unbroken modern materials and textures that adjoin a historic building, which are not found elsewhere in the downtown or in the neighboring historic district, is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards or Golden’s historic character.
Massing, Size and Scale. The proposed addition is very large – nearly the size of the existing building. The Astor House is located in an open setting with all four elevations comprising the visual connection to history. This addition would compete with the original structure on two sides and completely blocks a third, thus compromising the historic integrity of the building. We understand that this additional space is desired to accommodate public access and exhibits, but a reduced scale that is more compatible and subordinate to the historic building is appropriate.
Architectural Features. We also suggest that, if there is an addition, architectural elements from the historic structure be mirrored in the addition. The Astor House is a fairly simple building, and the size and spacing of the windows provide a distinguishing characteristic that break-up large expanses of exterior wall. Although we understand that actual windows may not be practical considering the proposed use of the new space, recessed window outlines with contrasting painting would help to blend the addition with the existing building. The suggestion of mortar lines, through indenting or painting, could also be added as an exterior finish.
Preservation of the Astor House Yard The proposed addition would encumber more than a third of the Astor House yard – an established city park. In the public proposal selected by City Council in 2020 the Astor Yard was shown to be maintained in its entirety, slightly improved, and public except for occasional temporary setups for events. Would the remaining Astor Yard still be primarily open to the public? We would like additional public discussion about the long-term use of this space.
Recommendations We recommend that additional discussion take place concerning the mass, size, materials and architectural details of the exterior of the proposed addition and the future use of the established city park. If the existing proposal is approved, we recommend that these discussions and potential adjustments to the plan be stipulations to that approval. From: Lauren Simmons To: Stephanie Alexander Subject: FW: Astor Yard Changes - Deny Certificate of Appropriateness Date: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:43:45 AM
Can you please to public comment-thanks!
From: Don Cameron > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:06 AM To: Lauren Simmons
Please share these comments with HPB, if possible, before tonight's meeting. I can not attend to make public comment.
Dear HPB,
There is a term in business called, "the bait and switch". Bait with a simple change (Astor Yard will be open and available) and Switch at the last minute (Limited outdoor space at all). I am quite annoyed at the proposal by FHC to add a new structure to what was to be the Astor Yard.
Here is The Bait from their their original application,
" Significant changes are needed to activate the Astor Yard, such as removing the non- contributing wood frame addition off the House's back. Doing so brings the Yard "closer" to the activities inside and reconstructs a piece of the original structure's historic integrity. Questions remain about the future of the brick washhouse in the Yard, and we will seek guidance from the City before we make any potential alterations. Expanding into the Yard, we envision a small stage for performances with complementary landscaping allowing for events, outdoor classes, and casual public use to "recharge" in the heart of Golden. As we finalize plans, yet, before we break ground, FAC will engage experts to carefully monitor and help study any evidence of longgone structures that might have been located proximate to the House. A recent study conducted by the Colorado School of Mines and Metcalf Archaeology indicated a high probability of buried artifacts; thus, any actions taken will be delicately managed to preserve anything of significance for public interpretation and enjoyment."
Besides the radical upside in cost, this change in use is simply not appropriate. There are lots of nice words in their application around how they are preserving the use and structure etc. But this is the heart of the matter, with regards to the addition. (some emphasis added to show The Switch)
" 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." Their approach of course states that they will maintain massing and finishes that are compatible. But it is this clause that gives me the most pause, " The goal of the rehabilitation of the Astor House and the new addition at the rear is to re-energize and activate the corner of 12th and Arapahoe, while also providing a new home for the Foothills Art Center. Building support space for the addition 6 includes (3) ADA compliant restrooms, an elevator, and modern egress stair — none of these functions are possible within the existing historic Astor House due to structural and spatial constraints. The remaining programmed space within the addition is comprised primarily of entry/reception and gallery space for the Foothills Art Center."
What I see is that they have expanded the use to incorporate not just ADA compliant art space, but gallery space too. After raising the city's expenses first by about half a million, to closer to a million, they will now get more gallery space, but to what end? They are likely to move from the current FHC facility, sell it off, and of course create a new challenge for HPB in terms of future use of that space. But more importantly, they are moving beyond historic preservation and creating a new use that was not part of their original proposal. The competing proposal would have left the Astor Yard as a more compatible space (and probably historically accurate) than the current proposal. Please deny their certificate of appropriateness.
Now, having said all that, and summarized how they have changed their approach, I would suggest one other option. If they are so motivated to basically replace FHC with this new location, then they should give the city an equity stake in their current building as compensation for their "bait and switch" tactic. Money or equity would help salve the wound they are creating.
Regards,
Don Cameron East Street Historic Neighborhood.
--
Don Cameron Golden, Colorado
Lauren Simmons
From: Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 2:11 AM To: Lauren Simmons; Rick Muriby; Jason Slowinski; Rod Tarullo; Carly Lorentz; Steve Glueck; Robin Becker; Laura Weinberg; Jennifer Trout; Rob Reed; Jim Dale; Bill Fisher; Paul Haseman; Casey Brown Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Current Astor House Proposal
I have had a good chance to review the proposed work upon the Astor House and thought it would be well for me to provide my own comments, in addition to those of others, which hopefully will give everyone a good chance to come up with the best project. I'll start with those elements which I'm probably the best particular person to specifically address, and then I'll speak to the addition and parkland that has otherwise gained people's attention:
First I should say that with as much public money and in-kind contributions having been previously and currently used on a National Historic Register landmark such as the Astor House, including from the federal, state and city governments, the citizens realistically have a right to expect the highest degree of preservation treatment of the place. It certainly would not reflect well if the public spent a large sum of money and effort for the Astor House to become less well preserved than any of the other National Register landmarks of Downtown Golden. A project to rehabilitate the Astor House therefore should best proceed with deliberate care and collaboration.
Regarding the interior, I must strongly oppose replacing any of the historic structural, bannister and guardrail components of the grand staircase. The bannister and guardrail, of which the guardrail appears to be affected in the proposal, are original components from the South School built in 1873 (later retrofitted to this staircase in 1965), and therefore are the oldest remaining building artifacts from any high school building in Colorado. They are imperative to preserve. I do understand that the staircase to be usable does need to meet building codes and it was designed for physically different people of a different time. To meet code I'd recommend installing a halo railing at proper height around the outside of the guardrail for public use. For the wall mounted handrail I'd suggest drawing upon the design of a railing that is in my own family's possession, the railings from the Linder Block, carved by the same woodworker (future Jefferson County Commissioner Robert Millikin) the same year as those of the Astor House. These components are stored only a block away now and can easily be brought to the Astor House for reference and comparison. They include a guardrail and wall mounted hand rail. I'm afraid the hand rail won't work to be physically reused itself due to the nature of its carving (the hand rail was mounted to the left side of its staircase, not the right, and its wood bends accordingly), but it can provide excellent guidance for creating a good match.
I must also strongly oppose demolishing the east wall of the Dining Room, as this is integral to defining the Astor House's original floor plan, which included the main hallway, dining room and parlor (not big open space and parlor). Its doorway was the one Seth Lake guarded to keep townspeople from overrunning his dining room. Destroying the largest remaining original interior wall is not preserving the floor plan; it is inflicting further harm upon it. Simply outlining its location is an educational tool, not preserving it. Moreover it can make the building more difficult to sustainably use because eliminating this wall would enable heat, cold and noise to freely infiltrate to the upper story and vice versa, rending the building less usable and more expensive to operate in utilities. Its design enabled more economical heating and cooling by confining them to specific areas without air escaping and thereby needing to heat or cool huge amounts of the structure. Its layout enabled greater flexibility in its use by confining noise within the large dining room and preventing noise from escaping upstairs or to other parts of the building, enabling it to have dining or public events while preserving a peaceful non- disruptive atmosphere for the users upstairs. I would otherwise volunteer that, in the upstairs, it is possible to provide a floor outline of all the missing rooms, in their original 1867 configurations, should anyone wish it (I'd also encourage preserving the smoked outline of the original east-west hall if possible, even if it's above a ceiling, it's a unique form of evidence to say the least). I'll also volunteer that the eastern upstairs room also had a name of its own folks can use: it was the Hall Bed Room. This, the Dining Room, Parlor (also known as the Sample Room), Kitchen, and Garret (its attic story) were the known named rooms of the Astor House.
Addressing the proposed addition to the Astor House, the proposed addition is not in its present form architecturally or physically compatible with the Astor House, certainly not according to the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines, in my own assessment as a professional preservation consultant. In scale it is larger than any structure historically built in the yard, or any prior rear projection of the Astor House. The yard has always been an open setting, and creating something of this
1 magnitude seriously degrades or destroys what remains of the historic setting of the Astor House. Any structures of significant scale that did exist were always kept at a physically separated distance towards the far end of the yard. Rear projections and additional structures of significant size also always had gabled roofs.
Speaking as to the design, large metal facades are not historically appropriate for this property nor to this profile degree for historic Downtown Golden, where metal siding was used in limited form (some corrugated iron) until the mid-20th Century (and by that point not only nondescript but architecturally incompatible with most historic structures there). The only metal component historically used at the Astor House or anywhere around it was corrugated iron roofing (like on the Loveland Block to the east, which roof likely had the same maker), not siding. I'm a bit puzzled by the choice because I was under the impression completely metal facades were proscribed by design code.
If any addition is to be built I'd recommend it be of modest scale, and not of a bulk or height that could compete with the main building. I recommend it be visually separated from the historic structure through use of a glass walled connection, similar to that of the Hall of Engineering upon the Mines campus, between its original 1894 building and elevator addition built in 1991. For the exterior design of an addition it would need to be something compatible in a historic design way with the historic Astor House structure. I can think of a couple possibilities along this line. While it is possible to use stone it would probably be best not to make it a stone structure because this could compete with what makes the Astor House unique in the civic landscape, being among the few early stone buildings we have left; this is something that sets it apart. One can make it of brick, though instead of a design duplication of the 1894 addition one might instead create a variant or amalgamation. The Astor House never had vast featureless surfaces and these are otherwise proscribed by code so one could install blind windows (window designed openings without actual openable windows in them, an architectural element used downtown since 1863 and used in reverse form at the Astor House with its upper floor interior facing recessed shelves) drawing upon the 1867 window design of the Astor House. This is the 6/6 double-hung window design that was commonly used in Golden at that time (since most had the same manufacturer). They would probably need to appear like glass rather than simple outlines because the Astor House never used exterior-facing blind features and otherwise it could make the design seem cheaper than the standard of the historic. If painted it best be a nicely contrasting or inverted coloration compared to the main building; the stark staring white historically used downtown is something best used today in moderation! Overall this version would make such an addition an amalgam of the 1867 and 1894 styles and remain compatible.
Another possibility that intrigues me that I could recommend would be drawing upon the design of the Astor House's original rear projection, which was an artistic design made with wood. This was originally the Lake House hotel built in 1865 that Seth Lake moved back when he built the Astor House and incorporated into it as its original rear kitchen. This building in design was a basic Carpenter Gothic styled structure. It was not remotely the ornate caliber of the Lace House in Central City, but it was a nice basic form featuring board and batten siding and dripping eaves woodwork (in a rounded type of design). Although windows are not visible in photos because other structures block the view they're not hard to guess; they would've been identical to the Astor House's 6/6 windows (Golden's ability to refine design s was rather limited then; almost all windows were the same). It would be simple, affordable, artistic, and historically compatible, being native to the Astor House's own design and that of its site and downtown.
It's important to make sure to address the fates of the hidden door (an 1867 original with original hardware discovered at the Dining Room; I know where it's lying upstairs now) and the historic Masterson iron fencing (from another 12th Street location from 1899). It is very important that whatever is done they are not discarded. The door is the 2nd oldest known in the city (only to the 1864 Loveland Mansion door in my possession), one which we actually know who its local maker likely was (Excelsior Planing Mill), and the fencing is among only a small handful of Golden's historic decorative iron fences that remains. This fencing is not historically native to the site but is historically native to the 12th Street Historic District and if not used here should be salvaged for reuse elsewhere in the future. I recommend the hidden door be reinstalled at the Dining Room, with its original hardware, as a de facto blind door (it can't be used as a real door there because if it opened one would literally run edge-on into a wall). If it is not reinstall ed at the Astor House then it should be preserved elsewhere, possibly as an artifact at the Golden History Museum or potentially reused at the Apex Inn if the City acquires it (the stone house of the Bachman Farms property, itself an 1864 stone hotel of similar general design).
I also recommend maximized reuse of the interior woodwork (baseboards, doors, door frames, etc.), as these are original (in some cases previously recycled original). A particular hallmark of the Astor House is that it maximized recycling and reuse of its materials; until now little original structural or decorative material has actually left the building since it was built. It was moved, rearranged or reconstructed in its renovations. I'd very much encourage today's project to follow this example. I'd further recommend that any such original woodwork, doors, wall studs, etc. (much of which are lying around there now) that are not reused that they not be discarded but saved by the City for potential future use in the Apex Inn if the City acquires it. That building appears to be intact but its exact interior condition is unknown and these could prove useful. To put it not entirely accurately but in a way that does make a point, old growth pine no longer grows on trees around here.
2
Speaking to one more perspective, I don't know of any other public park of Golden that has ever had this proposed degree of ground cover by structures in Golden's history, or anything close to it, including our prior park that was completely leased to a private entity (the now discarded Golden Tourist Park, which was very wide open; it was our original campground). One does need to consider how viable a public park is, as a park, if one has a greater degree of its ground covered by structures, and whether this fits with Golden's priorities and philosophy for its park system. In any event, I have previously informed folks of the existence of the 1867 hand cut stone from the same quarry as the Astor House that my family salvaged from the last building of the Eagle Brewery (in its time the only ale and porter brewery west of Chicago, which stood from 1867-1998 a block north). I'm willing to consider its use to repair the Astor House or use in the open park area (or both), though this would definitely depend on how well it's preserved and utilized, as it is a historically valuable and finite community. I can inform everyone that from a limited reassembly that's been done using it the stone has a rather striking rustic appearance.
I hope this information is useful to everyone and hope to advise further on this project in the future!
- Rick Gardner
3 Lauren Simmons
From: WILLIAM SARAH LITZ < > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 12:58 PM To: Lauren Simmons Cc: Stephanie Alexander Subject: Re: HPB 05/03 Public Comments
Lauren, I hope these remarks reach HPB tonight. I am a co-chair of AHA, but I hope this speaks to a broader question. I enjoyed the Mayor's photo and remarks on Facebook this weekend. The photo of tethered horses, the Capitol Grill, and the Astor House in the background speaks loudly. Let's build a structure that reflects Golden, not one that could be in Manhattan, Chicago, Atlanta or Dallas. Surely we can design something that looks like it belongs HERE. I will save further and future comments to the ongoing discussion.
Best, Bill
From: Lauren Simmons
Yes, until 1pm for written and of course you can sign up to give live public comment until 5pm this evening.
From: WILLIAM SARAH LITZ > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 10:42 AM To: Lauren Simmons
Lauren,
Is there still time for comments for this evening" meeting?
Bill
1 From: Rick @ SoudersStudios > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 3:51 PM To: Lauren Simmons Subject: Historic Preservation Board Comments on Astor House
Importance: High
Good afternoon Lauren, My name is Rick Souders and I am the president of the Foothills Art Center. I am also a resident of Golden and I have had my business here for over 25 years. I will be out of town during the presentation and discussion of the Astor House. I therefore wanted to send you my formal response in leu of not being able to attend the virtual meeting.
I have been involved in the arts and the food industry in Golden for 25 years and I am on the Public Arts Commission. I have also been heavily involved in Astor House affairs. When Foothills Art Center first made a proposal to repair and revitalize the current structure and add a new addition, I have chatted with a number of community leaders, community residents and local artists. The overwhelming majority love the proposals that we are putting forward.
I wanted to address some minor concerns. The new addition has been very well received by Council and Staff. The addition was necessary in order to make it worthwhile to spend the kind of money that Foothills Art Center is investing. Some of the additional space became larger because of all the code requirements which I hope the HPB takes into account. The other elements that required the expansion where simply looking at the cost per square foot versus the equity and contribution to the community. Foothills needed to expand to be able to have gallery space and create a Golden Citywide Hub for all residents and visiting patrons. A lot of design sensitivities, historic preservation, esthetics, people flow and ease of use were involved in every aspect of the design.
And, while the expansion does take up a portion of the yard, I would like to point out that the majority of City Stakeholders are very much in support. We are actually tying the Astor House and yard together in a very confluent manner both in terms of design, flow and accessibility. The Astor Yard has sat unusable and in a degradative state for years. We are revitalizing that into a vibrant community yard that everyone can enjoy. It will be a beautiful space that once again is an attraction to the City and not an eye sore.
I thank the City of Golden for giving Foothills Art Center the opportunity to make the Astor House a grand part of Golden again. Its new presence should be just as impressive as its historic past. At Foothills we understand maintaining a very historically significant building and our philosophy and approach to that applies to the Astor House as well. We are committed to making Astor House a central hub and destination in the City of Golden. I encourage the Historic Preservation Board to give us and the Astor House its full support.
Thank you!
RICK SOUDERS | Photographer | Director SOUDERS STUDIOS, INC.
President | Foothills Art Center Board Member | Past President | Grace Ministries Board Member | Sponsorship Chair | ASMP Colorado Commissioner | Golden Public Arts Commission Advisory Board | Colorado Mountain College Advisory Board | RMCAD
Lauren Simmons
From: Janine Sturdavant > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 9:34 AM To: Lauren Simmons Subject: HPB 21-05 822 12th St Astor House
Dear Lauren, I would like to submit this statement as Public Comment for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Astor House Project. After review of the available documents, I believe that the proposed rehabilitation of the Astor House structure and the new addition meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards with the exception of the materials (metal surface cladding with holes) proposed for the exterior of the addition. In my opinion, the project would be better served by an exterior configuration more relective of the Astor House itself. The roofline, height and scale are certainly appropriate. My suggestion is to remove the metal skin and go with the cementious surface, indented with faux window openings that match the size and spacing on the historic structure, as below. Overall, I am extremely happy with the proposed Foothills Art Center uses and programming, believing that this project will culminate in a successful and economically viable reuse of one of Golden's neglected historic treasures. The Astor House will be saved once again!
Respectfully, Janine M Sturdavant Past Chair, Golden HPB
1 2